Why are all computer images squares? Why can't we have circular pictures and monitors?

Why are all computer images squares? Why can't we have circular pictures and monitors?
Even pic related is a square with transparent corners to make it look like it's a circle when in reality it's a square.

Attached: 1492314001260-co.png (505x506, 375.77K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Name one useful property of circular images.

How can you display a circle when pixels are squares

I sincerely hope you're just baiting and not actually too retarded to understand the reasons.

Our sight isn't squared. A circle is more efficient since you can make it so it uses a 100 % of your sight instead of wasting the corners. See pic related.

Irrelevant. Subpixels can be arranged in triangles or circles, too.

Attached: Sin nombre.png (640x400, 4.42K)

Computer screens are rectangular

Subpixels don't exist man. There are pixels, and then there is "sub pixel rendering" which is just rendering that takes into account the pixels physical makeup.

When everything is a circle you will waste all that fucking corner space. Instead of perfect screen usage you have massive gaps. This happens even if the physical screen is a circle.

Rectangles are squares.

No, you won't. It would be necessary to rethink GUIs though.


Attached: stock-vector-magnified-views-showing-different-subpixel-arrangements-on-lcd-screens-128881654.jpg (450x470, 50.61K)

You see that those are just normal rectangles right. There is no rearranging them into anything else.

Right so when I have one image, and then another image next to it, no wasted space? You literally cant pack circles and not have wasted space. Not without extra dimensional time bending bullshit that does not exist on 2d screens.

Squares are rectangles, rectangles are not squares.

Paper - the first output medium - is rectangular, because that's what's most practical for displaying text. This carried over to first screens and we just never bothered to change it. Even if circular screens were beneficial, just look at qwerty and how we're stuck with it, even though changing keyboard layout is basically free.

No, it's closer to an ellipse.

Circular displays don't make since at all even if it was free to instantly change. Op needs to explain what the fuck a system would even look like that does not waste all screen space.

Rectangles are easy to work with for a bunch of reasons.
Possibly the most important one for computer screens is that the most practical coordinate system is rectangle-based.
Another really important (but not entirely distinct) one is that you can pack rectangles with very little fuss. If you need to fill a shape with similarly-shaped differently-proportioned shapes without rotating them you can't do much better than rectangles.

And I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether they make sense or not, because it'd be too costly to change to it.

If it made enough difference it could be changed, especially in new things like VR. In the case of qwerty the difference is just not enough to matter. You won't be typing 50% faster. I use dvorak for everything, not THAT MUCH better than before. Feels nicer to type tho.

They don't make much sense for UI, but circles (or rather ellipses) would make perfect sense for videos. And not just for the sake of viewing, but also because in cameras you're actually wasting pixels by using rectangles.

Because circles are mathematically a pain in the ass to deal with in any capacity.

Really? Then why are brains not cubes?

The same reason we don't have round books.

One way or the other, there will be wasted information. How many circular documents do you have verses square? If you're like most people, the answer is none or almost none. Pixels are arranged in a matrix so if you have a circular display you will always have to support additional discarded corners. Until someone invents displays with radian output and rasterization, it would be a total waste.

Obviously any math would have to be based around angle+distance from centre, rather than what we're using for rectangles.

If that did exist, how would it still not be a waste. You cant put circles next to each other without throwing away all the edge space.

Yeah have you ever tried to program something like that, it'd be slow as hell

It would be perfect for watching chinese cartoons. Duh.

Attached: c86637f191c3bf2b475314e6991dbdb90cff06626009d7f30013f0c88d228359.png (600x860, 355.85K)

This is also true. Multiple monitor setups are arranged in a matrix. There are matrices everywhere. It just makes more sense to have square or rectangular output.

If you could address via a circle abstraction instead it would be fine speed wise.

Obviously. The infrastructure would have to be entirely different for it to be viable.

No, at a mathematical level you'd have to be doing trig stuff which is way more complex and would make CPUs needlessly expensive as they'd need to optimise for this.

Lol no. Only when mapping circles to standard square pixels. You don't do any trig to address a hard drive sector.

There are displays like radars that scan in a radius, and calculate with polar coordinates instead of cartesian.
Old technology though, but maybe it would be more efficient.

Attached: 94CEB21D-74A2-48B0-B156-E91B936FE320.jpeg (626x626, 141.69K)

That's a good point, but the image you chose makes my skin crawl

IKR no radar could possibly go that far

I thought these were all square screens with a facade placed over them to look circular until I went digging. I guess OP can now live out his fantasy.

Attached: RCA_7JP4_Electrostatic_Picture_Tube_Front_View_(late_1940).jpg (1200x803, 175.17K)

Not a radar, but it could be launching a rocket for every ping, the rocket carries a nuclear device whose detonation is detected and displays a dot on that position in the map.

It's hip to be square

No, I'm irked because the earth is a sphere, and that map isn't behaving like a sphere at all. It's stretching the poles horizontally to avoid deforming America and Asia, but it shouldn't treat the poles differently from any other area a quarter way around the earth. And the opposite to the origin of the radar should be stretched all around the circumference, not appear just at two sides.
It's favoring a horizontal projection, which is very suitable for maps but not for something like this.


pajeet knows the answer

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (280x180, 47.26K)

It`s a matter of area and stacking, both in the production process and in the product usage, mapping and workability.
Also, the Square is the perfect figure of two dimensions.

Not doing it squared is the ultimate retardation.

Only squares stack perfectly. All other shapes either waste space between members of a grid, or waste perimeter by making borders of the grid irregular. It also has the advantage that rectangles of different sizes also happen to be stackable with ease. Rectangular screens are simply the best shape to convey the highest possible data density.


Attached: blackspace.png (825x394, 32.22K)

Because you can fit a circle with a radius of 5 inside a square with a side length of 10, but can't do it the other way around.

Well, there are radars that could go that far, except for the fact that the Earth is round so most of it would just get beamed into space.

Yea so they cant.

4:3 faggots btfo



Attached: clock.jpeg (620x357, 131.5K)

economics plays a factor in all of this as well. thats why you get flat earthers.

I hope you guys don't seriously do this. The galaxy isn't a game of billiards.

Attached: what-ball-earthers-actually-believe.gif (500x281, 1.34M)

go fuck yourself ffs

lol no its flat user wew lad

We only used circular screens when oscilloscopes were the only kind of display tech available

Attached: fbd8ce9156bd405a2e37228728dc4b54--computer-technology-computer-science.jpg (620x584, 54.5K)

Found the glow in the dark

It might not be a sphere but it does have curvature

You can't abstract away fundamental geometry without introducing loss of information. You think everyone uses square roots for circle checks because they like how slow it is?

Where would we put the less important display elements that we don't want in our line of sight the entire time? (x) and (-) are a good example.

It amazes me that people like you manage to survive to adulthood.

Because they are impractical in about any sense. Dimensions are basically always defined in terms of straight lines (whatever is parallel or perpendicular to a coordinate axis is considered "straight"), and only after you have a coordinate system defined by perpendicular lines do you define circles. Matrices are perpendicular as well. Squares are exact even with low resolution, while circles are always only approximated.

Found the faggot who desperately tries to be the smartest on a mongolian pottery discussion website.

Wow you sure convinced me that the Earth is round.

The term "round" is only unambiguous if you have exactly two dimensions. A disk is round (but it's also flat if viewed from a perspective of at least three dimensions). A sphere is round but not flat if viewed from a perspective of three dimensions.

macbook 20 design confirmed

But it's flat when viewed from a perspective of four dimensions.
What we need are hypersphere screens.

Op is retarded.

still closer than 16:9 faggot

Fuck, forgot to sage.
brb, gotta kill myself

OP is hilarious

Monitor = 2D space = 2D coordinate system to reference display points.
A Cartesian coordinate system is more amenable to indexing display point position than an orthogonal Polar coordinate system, and is natively more appropriate to binary systems (digital computers).

This is also evidenced by the fact that circular displays are found in older analog systems. The angular index requires a continuous range for true accuracy. Within discrete (digital) systems the angular value would be an approximation and the difference more apparent f(distance from origin, object speed on screen)

Very small circled or halfsphered monitors with a hole in the middle would be usefull to build moveable robot eyes without muscles or strings. Is it possible to build something like this, or where would be the problem?

Attached: 8ch_net_slash_robowaifu_-012.jpg (863x1150, 481.05K)

Aren't hexagons the best ones to stack together?


Which brings us to another reason why there are no circular images and displays. They are trying to deny the existance of god, who made a round earth with luminaries that move in a circular motion.

I can already tell that you're the type of person that wouldn't accept evidence if you were put into orbit.

They used to have rounded corners though.

Attached: cottonwoodbbs10.jpg (567x426, 87.43K)

Putting round plastic on top of a square screen doesn't make it a round screen.

as you can see here, my avocado is flat, now if we just zoom out, you'll see that it's flat all over
something's not right

Attached: IMG_7294.JPG (1200x900, 262.07K)

I am a massive faggot, please rape my face.

Attached: IMG_72924.jpg (69x84, 5.96K)

Hexagons are "best" were "best" = optimal stacking, with good structural integrity, for minimum boundary resources (lowest circumference 'walls') which is why nature uses hexagons so frequently.

The CRT tubes were made of glass. Sharp corners would be a high stress point, and would cause a higher failure rate.
It was fun to charge up after turning off the display by sweeping the screen.


When you lay bricks you shift each row by half the length.. just fyi before you start cutting them into hexagons.

Our vision doesn't stop all at once. At the center there's a lot of focus, then the vision gradually worsens until you can only detect big changes in the light that comes in at the edges.


Attached: fact.png (2400x900, 1.88M)

The tube itself doesn't have a straight corner though. There is also some distortion on the edges.

If the Earth is like an avocado how come telescopes have never spotted a giant avocado in space? Your model should at least account for something blocking our view of it, like the Sun.


Attached: counterearth.jpg (694x323, 58.17K)

Circles don't tessellate, you want hexes.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (2000x2000, 175.95K)

Memory is sequential and a square is uniform in its width and height, even if one is larger than the other.

A circular array would be more of a pain in the ass.



First, you said square, second, that's not even what you meant with that post

Is there any other significantly different celestial mechanics concept that would explain what can be seen in the sky equally well? The Ptolemeian system was surprisingly accurate (at least for the time) once epicycles were introduced into it and nobody complained much about its supposed inaccuracy for more than a millenium until the inertia of the church's influence was overcome and the Copernican system was widely accepted.

Also, why won't flatearthers simply fork Stellarium and change its algorithms to correspond with their views if they are so sure of them? Shouldn't Flatterrarium(tm) be much more accurate if based on """true""" premises instead of the """false""" ones like Stellarium? Wouldn't that be their victory?